Stephen Batchelor'S Sydney Lecture

[Xangsamhua]

An edited version of Stephen Batchelor's recent talk in Sydney is at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/3042119.htm

The text is a bit garbled in places (inattentive transcriber), but clear enough.

The comments are interesting, too, including a crotchety and unconstructive response from Ajahn Brahm ("I am a leading Aussie Buddhist"), who bags Batchelor as "oddball", "eccentric" and "second-rate" and his writing as "not subjected to meaningful peer review". I'm not sure what he means by the latter. Batchelor's writing is very much in the public domain and, hence, subject to peer and other kinds of review. In fact, a critical, though balanced and respectful review by Bhikkhu Bodhi of "Buddhism Without Beliefs" appears in "Buddhist Ethics" (one of a small number of peer-reviewed international Buddhist journals) and can be retrieved at http://www.buddhiste...rg/5/batch1.htm . If he means that Batchelor should be writing for academic peer reviewed journals (usually written for academics) that seems an odd request for an author who, while exposing himself to academic and clerical critique, does not write primarily for an academic audience. Ajahn Brahm, apart from his own books, appears to write for non-peer reviewed blogs, e-journals and newspapers.

Having said that, I think I agree with Bhikkhus Bodhi and Brahm that Batchelor is stretching the point if he still describes himself as a "Buddhist" (which he does). "Neo-Buddhist" perhaps, or simply a secular humanist inspired by and drawing from the Buddhadhamma and a broad Buddhist matrix, but, as Bhikkhu Bodhi says, at some point a line must be drawn between "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist". The Bhikkhu would draw it at the Threefold Refuge. A Buddhist goes to it; a Non-Buddhist does not. Stephen Batchelor does not.

[Genericnic]

"[A] line must be drawn between "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist"."

An interesting concept.

David

[Brucenkhamen]

"[A] line must be drawn between "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist"."

An interesting concept.

I'd have to take issue with that as well, it sounds like something a theist would say.

The world isn't that black in white, rather it's various shades of grey. We all take on board from the teachings that which makes sense and works for us. Some days my attitude might be more Buddhist than others, does that mean I cross the line at times?

Buddhist is just a label, not something by which to filter people into an in crowd and an out crowd.

[Xangsamhua]

"[A] line must be drawn between "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist"."

An interesting concept.

I'd have to take issue with that as well, it sounds like something a theist would say.

The world isn't that black in white, rather it's various shades of grey. We all take on board from the teachings that which makes sense and works for us. Some days my attitude might be more Buddhist than others, does that mean I cross the line at times?

Buddhist is just a label, not something by which to filter people into an in crowd and an out crowd.

The actual quote from Bhikku Bodhi is as follows (my emphasis):

In my view, Batchelor is ready to cast away too much that is integral to the Buddha's teaching in order to make it fit in with today's secular climate of thought. I'm afraid that the ultimate outcome of such concessions could be a psychologically oriented humanism tinged with Buddhist philosophy and a meditative mood. I certainly think that Buddhists should freely offer other religions and secular disciplines the full resources of their own tradition—philosophy and ethics, meditation and psychology—with perfect liberty, to use them for their own ends: "The Tathaagata does not have a teacher's closed fist." But we still have to draw a sharp line between what is the Buddha's Dhamma and what is not, and I would say, all such practices undertaken outside the context of Going for Refuge are still on the hither side of the Dhamma, not yet within its fold. http://www.buddhiste...rg/5/batch1.htm

I thought it was an interesting comment and seemed to make sense, though I don't like simplistic definition either. Nevertheless, the act of going to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha for refuge is a defining event, though part of a process preceding and following it. Bhikkhu Bodhi has earlier noted that What is notably absent in Batchelor's conception of the path is the traditional foundation for Buddhist practice: the Going for Refuge to the Three Jewels. He takes issue with that.

[Brucenkhamen]

"The Tathaagata does not have a teacher's closed fist." But we still have to draw a sharp line between what is the Buddha's Dhamma and what is not, and I would say, all such practices undertaken outside the context of Going for Refuge are still on the hither side of the Dhamma, not yet within its fold.[/i] http://www.buddhiste...rg/5/batch1.htm

I thought it was an interesting comment and seemed to make sense, though I don't like simplistic definition either. Nevertheless, the act of going to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha for refuge is a defining event, though part of a process preceding and following it. Bhikkhu Bodhi has earlier noted that What is notably absent in Batchelor's conception of the path is the traditional foundation for Buddhist practice: the Going for Refuge to the Three Jewels. He takes issue with that.

I don't believe there is any such sharp dividing line. If morality, responsibility, and self awareness are taught outside of a Buddhist context does it cease to be dhamma? does it cease to be truth? I don't think so, to the degree that it conforms with dhamma it is dhamma, to the degree that it contradicts it isn't.

As for Going for Refuge being the sharp line what does it mean? To some people it's a prayer you recite when you go to the Wat, to others it's putting your trust in the Buddha as if he were some eternal god like figure who will give you good luck, to others it's a conversion experience.

To me it's none of those things.

Buddha means the one who knows, so going for refuge in Buddha is taking refuge in "knowing", taking refuge in the minds capacity to be aware.

Dhamma means truth, so going for refuge in Dhamma means putting your reliance on the quest for truth, being willing to scrutinise to question and not resting in heresay, not settling for comforting explanations.

Sangha means those people who are on the path, taking refuge in Sangha means seeking their support and guidance.

I'd say Stephen Batchelor is a good example of all of those.

[Xangsamhua]

"The Tathaagata does not have a teacher's closed fist." But we still have to draw a sharp line between what is the Buddha's Dhamma and what is not, and I would say, all such practices undertaken outside the context of Going for Refuge are still on the hither side of the Dhamma, not yet within its fold.[/i] http://www.buddhiste...rg/5/batch1.htm

I thought it was an interesting comment and seemed to make sense, though I don't like simplistic definition either. Nevertheless, the act of going to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha for refuge is a defining event, though part of a process preceding and following it. Bhikkhu Bodhi has earlier noted that What is notably absent in Batchelor's conception of the path is the traditional foundation for Buddhist practice: the Going for Refuge to the Three Jewels. He takes issue with that.

I don't believe there is any such sharp dividing line. If morality, responsibility, and self awareness are taught outside of a Buddhist context does it cease to be dhamma? does it cease to be truth? I don't think so, to the degree that it conforms with dhamma it is dhamma, to the degree that it contradicts it isn't.

As for Going for Refuge being the sharp line what does it mean? To some people it's a prayer you recite when you go to the Wat, to others it's putting your trust in the Buddha as if he were some eternal god like figure who will give you good luck, to others it's a conversion experience.

To me it's none of those things.

Buddha means the one who knows, so going for refuge in Buddha is taking refuge in "knowing", taking refuge in the minds capacity to be aware.

Dhamma means truth, so going for refuge in Dhamma means putting your reliance on the quest for truth, being willing to scrutinise to question and not resting in heresay, not settling for comforting explanations.

Sangha means those people who are on the path, taking refuge in Sangha means seeking their support and guidance.

I'd say Stephen Batchelor is a good example of all of those.

I like what you say. I guess I'm a bit reluctant to disagree with Bhikkhu Bodhi and I've not seen any Stephen Batchelor response to BB's remarks (they were made in 1998), but my intuition and disposition incline me to your point of view.

Why do you think Ajahn Brahm responded in such a hostile fashion? Just a bad hair day?

[Brucenkhamen]

I like what you say. I guess I'm a bit reluctant to disagree with Bhikkhu Bodhi and I've not seen any Stephen Batchelor response to BB's remarks (they were made in 1998), but my intuition and disposition incline me to your point of view.

Why do you think Ajahn Brahm responded in such a hostile fashion? Just a bad hair day?

I guess he wants to be invited on the show, I wouldn't want to speculate more than that. By way of contrast Stephen Batchelor held a public meeting tonight in wellington, Ajahn Thiradhammo and a couple of other Bhikkus were in the audience.

Listening to the radio broadcast one thing I noticed the announcer said which didn't seem right to me. He said like everything else truth was subject to the laws of impermanence and change wheras I don't think that's really what Stephen is saying, rather he is saying Buddhist religion is subject to the law of impermanence and change. Mind you he also says you can't really find the essence of Buddhism, it's a process rather than a thing with an essence.